TRUST BUT VERIFY: When the New York Times Janet Maslin reviewed Slander, she had some good solid fun with a footnote. [O]ne bit of proof that Phyllis Schlafly is treated dismissively by the left comes from a People magazine review of The Muppets Take Manhattan, she chuckled. Indeed, just how eager was author Ann Coulter to slam the press corps treatment of Schlafly? She went all the way back to 1984 to cite the Muppet movie review, which included a jab at the Illinois icon. Of course, Coulters text doesnt say what shes citing. You have to read the footnote to see how far she went to find a vile slam at the right.

Maslin has some fun with this footnote, but gives too much credence to others. A great deal of research supports Ms. Coulters wisecracks, she writesapparently not understanding how much of this research has simply been made up by Coulter. Do reviewers ever fact-check books? If Maslin had checked the 780 footnotes she approvingly cites, she might have seenand she might have told readershow much of this book is just false.

As weve seen, if Maslin had fact-checked Slanders first page, she would have found instant dissembling (see the DAILY HOWLER, July 11). Page two? The same sad result. But Coulter loves to mask bogus claims with a footnote. Indeed, when Coulter limns Schlafly, she does it again. She slams the press corps performance:

COULTER (page 40): [T]he mainstream media ignore Schlafly when not deploying their trademark elitist snubs. Revealing true facts about Schlafly would inevitably result in unfavorable comparisons with inconsequential feminists. Not one of Schlaflys books has ever been reviewed in the New York Times.Schlafly is preposterously demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain relevant.

That last claim is duly footnoted; Coulter cites a Chicago Tribune piece from 8/1/96. (Her charge is plural, but theres only one cite.) But in fact, the Tribunes profile of Schlaflyby the APs Jim Salteris flattering from beginning to end. In paragraph one, Salter says that Schlafly will be attending her 11th GOP convention this month showing no intention of being irrelevant (emphasis added). He closes with a detailed review of Schlaflys impressive career:

SALTER: Schlafly rose to national prominence in 1964, when she wrote A Choice Not an Echo, a history of the Republican convention, regarded as a manifesto for the far Right movement that championed Barry Goldwater.

Then in the early 1970s, Schlafly took on the Equal Rights Amendment, beginning a grassroots anti-ERA effort that eventually led to its defeat. [James] Dobson says Schlafly almost single-handedly defeated the amendment.

In the process, she became the subject of scorn by feminists and liberals. She was spit upon, took a public pie in the face. Feminist Betty Friedan once told her, Id like to burn you at the stake. She was vilified in a 1970s Doonesbury cartoon.

That gave me more status with my children than anything Ive ever done, Schlafly said, laughing.

In 1976, at age 51, Schlafly was fighting the ERA, writing an 832-page book about Henry Kissinger and raising six children when she entered law school. She graduated 27th out of a class of 204.

Baldly dissembling, Coulter says that this Tribune piece was preposterously demeaning to Schlafly. But then, three pages earlier, she told readers that [t]here is certainly not the remotest possibility that the mainstream media will ever breathe a word of [Schlaflys] extraordinary accomplishments. Note to Maslin: If you dont check all of Coulters research, shell mislead you time after time.

Other footnoted claims about Schlafly are highly bogus. And one more point, kidsCoulter is cagy! According to a NEXIS search, the Washington Times has never reviewed any of Schlaflys books, either.

IT HAD US FUMING, TOO: Just for a bit of comic relief, heres another of Coulters complaints:

COULTER (page 40): [According to the mainstream media], Phyllis Schlafly never comes up with a witty or tart reply. She fumes (Newsweek) or opens her mouth (New York Times) or snaps (Newsweek).

Admittedly, Coulters charges here are odd. But a problem looms in her research, too. Footnotes bolster each Newsweek quote. But did the New York Times really say that Phyllis Schlafly opens her mouth? Coulter offers no citation, and a diligent search reveals no such statement. According to NEXIS, there are thirteen cites in the NYT archive for the entry Schlafly AND mouth. But in none of these articles did the New York Times ever claim that she actually opens it. Our judgment? Coulter has made a troubling charge. Its time to bring forward the evidence.

By the way, when did Newsweek say that Schlalfy snapped a reply? The cite is twenty-three years old. Heres the offending passage:

NEWSWEEK (4/30/79): The changes [in state divorce codes] can exacerbate the plight of older women. We now have a whole new class of impoverished women not equipped to go into the work force, snapsSchlafly. Chicago lawyer Joseph DuCanto, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, agrees. Its an illusion, DuCanto contends. A court says, Get out there, lady, and hustle. You go to Marshall Fields and talk to women clerks. One of two is divorced, middle class and has to get and work, and thats the only work they can do.

Its hard to know what Newsweek did wrong. Its writers agreed with Schlaflys assessment. But Coulter has a good ear for insults, and she traveled two decades to find one.

INCOMPARABLE FAIRNESS: None of this denies the obvious. A serious writer might want to examine the medias treatment of Phyllis Schlafly, or the medias approach to a wide range of issues. But Coulter isnt a serious writer; Coulter is a dissembler and clown. Thats why Christopher Caldwell, a serious conservative, dismissed her book as political hackwork. If reviewers would check out her great deal of research, they might see just how right Caldwell was.
TOMORROW: Coulters last page? Its just made up also.